Menu

Losing My Religion

In the interests of full disclosure, I’ll admit I’ve had this post in my drafts folder for some time now. As always, standard caveats apply with regard to my policy on posts about religion, politics, and socioeconomics. I don’t delve into the particulars of these subjects, but I will dissect how they coincide with intersexual dynamics.

It’s no secret that I’ve been a regular follower of Dalrock’s blog for over five years now. Along with Dal I also consider Donalgraeme and a few other bloggers in the ‘Christo-Manosphere’ Red Pill colleagues if not friends. I’ve always held Dalrock as a sort of Red Pill brother since both our blogs came up around the same time. I’ve quoted and credited him in both my books.

I do so because there was a time I considered pursuing a path in my writing that would follow the same Red Pill critique of religion, (Christianity for Dal) at least in some occasional sense. After reading Dalrock’s very insightful early posts I decided against it. Dal has earned the respect of the manosphere for his Red Pill lens of contemporary Christianity for good reason – he’s a consummate statistician and researcher, and he’s what I’d call “embedded” well within modern (I presume mostly evangelical) church culture. He does it better than I could hope to do that part of the manosphere justice.

I never go into any detail about my own faith for a couple of reasons, the first being it’s only peripherally relevant in my writing. Secondly, it’s always been my position that the Red Pill needs to remain fundamentally areligious and apolitical. That said, I am familiar enough with ‘Churchian’ culture and the psycho-social side of mainstream religion to understand it through my own Red Pill lens.

When I analyze Red Pill principles within social contexts I always have a hard time with religion. It grates on me because I’m of the opinion that one’s religious leanings, one’s interaction with existence and life, one’s consideration of the spiritual, ought to be something personal and private if it’s in anyway genuine. As such, and for some, it can be a source of real vulnerability and exploitation which is really nothing new to anyone. It’s one thing to be even agnostic and trapped in a Blue Pill world, but it’s quite another to have been raised to adulthood in a religious context and coming to terms with having some very deep ego-investments shattered by a new Red Pill awareness.

If you ask anyone steeped in the Blue Pill conditioning of the Feminine Imperative about how this exploitation operates in an intersexual context you’ll likely get the standard answer that religion is largely a “social construct designed to maintain the Patriarchy.” And I have no doubt that in a Judeo-Christian sense this was likely the case for millennia. I won’t dig into how much of this had the latent purpose of controlling for Hypergamy in this post, but in the generations since the sexual revolution and the rise of feminine social primacy this maintaining the Patriarchy is a failing distraction on the part of the Feminine Imperative.

Creating Religion in the Image of the Feminine Imperative

For the past five generations, there has been a concerted re-engineering of religion (and not just limited to Christianity) to better suit the ends of the Feminine Imperative. Just as men are sold the idealism of the old set of books while living within the social context that confounds them, religion has been coopted by the feminine. The old books religion has either been replaced wholesale by a feminine-interpreted, feminine-directed religion that places women as its highest authority, or it’s been restructured and rewritten to serve the same feminine-primary objectives.

For going on six years now, Dalrock has masterfully documented and rightly criticized these shifts in Christianity. Although I’m focusing on western Christiainty here, this re-engineering of modern religion is not limited to just Christianity. A Red Pill perspective reveals a lot of uncomfortable truths, one of these is how well the Feminine Imperative has succeeded in supplanting any and all masculine influence in religion.

I expect there will be female critics who’ll cite that, in most of church culture, it’s still predominantly men who control churches and religious organizations, but in the era of feminine social primacy, it’s not who executes the control, but whose beliefs control the executors. Pair this with the commodification of religion and we can see the spheres of true feminine control and feminine-primary purpose.

Churchians bewail their emptying pews, then continue to preach their false gospels that have driven men and nationalists out of the Church.

After almost six years of following the religious aspects of the Red Pill, I think it’s high time men acknowledge that modern Christian culture simply does not have men’s best interests as part of its doctrine anymore. Christianity, in particular, is by women, for women – if not directly executed by women, though even that is changing.

Church culture is now openly hostile towards any expression of conventional masculinity that doesn’t directly benefit women and actively conditions men to be serviceable, gender-loathing Betas. The feminist narrative of “toxic masculinity” has entirely replaced any semblance of what traditional masculinity or manhood once was to the church. Any hint of a masculinity not entirely beholden to a now feminine-primary purpose is not only feared, but shamed with feminine-interpreted aspersions of faith.

I recently read a study that our current generation is the least religious in history and I think as far as men are concerned much of that disdain for religion is attributable to a church culture that constantly and openly ridicules and debases any male-specific endeavors or anything characteristic of conventional masculinity. It’s no secret in today’s church franchisement that reaching out to, and retaining the interests of, men is at its most difficult.

Again, this is attributable to a generation of feminized men being raised into a church culture, and eventual church leadership, that has been taught to prioritize and identify with the feminine and reinforced with articles of faith now defined by the Feminine Imperative. The modern church has trouble reaching men because the church no longer has a grasp of what it means to be ‘men’.

To be clear, that’s not an indictment of the genuine faith itself, but rather a fairly measured observation of the way a feminine-primary church culture has shaped that faith. In the future, any man with a marginal capacity for critical thought will avoid the contemporary Christian church and religion for the obvious misandry it espouses; the only religious men you will find will be those raised into a life of religiously motivated Beta servitude – or those dragged to the feminine-directed church by wives who hold authoritative ‘headship’ in their relationships.

And even in what some consider to be pro-masculine or “macho” churches, we still find the Paper Alpha leaders preach from a mindset that defers wholesale to the feminine’s “Godly perfection” as they attempt to AMOG other male member to greater devotion to qualifying for, and identifying with, the feminine influence that pervades their church.

Religious men will be synonymous with a Beta mindset.

It’s gotten to a point where it’s better to look after your self-interests and repent of the sin later than commit to an institution that openly seeks to indenture you. I realize that might be anathema to the more determined religious man, but just understand that this is the pragmatic, deductive future that the contemporary, western-feminized church is presenting to men. The social contract of marriage from a religious perspective has shifted into the ultimate leap of faith for men. They literally risk everything in marriage – child custody, sexual access, any expectation of true, male authority or respect, long-term financial prospects, etc. – but this leap of faith comes with a metaphysical price tag.

Men declining to participate in faith-based marriage decline an aspect of a faith reset to serve women; women who are held as a higher order of sinless being than men by this new church. For the agnostic or areligious man, discarding a Blue Pill social conditioning for a Red Pill awareness is a difficult task, but for men raised to believe that their only doctrinally approved path to sex with a woman is abstinence until marriage, that man’s only hope is to accept his fate and stay the Beta a feminized church has conditioned him to be.

And once he gets to marriage and his approved expression of his sexuality, the “Christian” man finds that the feminized church, even the male elders, expect endless qualifications to women and his wife’s unceasing appeasement in exchange for that approved sex. It’s a tail-chasing that holds men to the old books social order expectations while absolving women of all accountability and expecting him to also make concessions for a new (feminized) social order that’s ensaturated the church.

SeventiesJason from Dalrock’s blog:

And then we have “Christian marriage” divorce rates which are only a few paltry percentage points lower than the secular world……..men like Chandler will blame “men” for not leading, not being ‘holy’ enough, not bold n’ biblical enough, not going to bed exhausted every night….and a pile of other excuses for why she “had no choice” but to end the marriage.

We have a whole cottage industry of ‘christian counseling’ and self-help books, usually written for and by women. We have conferences, TV channels, broadcast networks, podcasts, radio stations, outreach, plenty of churches in this country……..the Internet. A ton of resources. Books……every pastor great and small today is “working on” or has written a book.

How on earth did the early church survive under the penalty of death? Persecution. Seclusion, and outright shunning? How did it grow? How did it survive?

We are told over and over by pastors that “God has an amazing plan for your life!” and then to sell men in the world this ‘churchian’ ploy that you are somehow not as holy, balanced, ready, equipped, or mature to handle this amazing plan….ah, but your wife to be is! The unspoken consolation prize is “but…..hey, you get to have sex….and that’s the only thing men need or think about and want!”

That seems to be given begrudgingly today (in my men’s group…..goodness, so many of the married guys complain that their wives never want sex)

How did the early church turn the world upside down? All God did was send a few men, and they made it happen. We have so many tools today…..and we’re “helpless” and we tend to think a “building program” will help everything and if we let the men fix things on the property they will feel “useful”

For over five generations now, the modern church has become a Beta farm existing only to produce the same masculinity-confused men that the secular world has perfected today. In our idealism I think too many (even well-meaning Red Pill) men believe that the church is some insulation against the worst of the Feminine Imperative when it is in fact an institution that produces the same men we hope to free from the Matrix.

In spite of what you might hear in the media about how terrible and retrograde evangelicals are, the entire movement, even the “conservative” end is thoroughly feminized.

The central Christian teaching that ALL people are sinners gets glossed over. Instead, the notion that men are somehow worse by nature than women is everywhere, sometimes stated overtly, often in the subtext.

At the same time, women are elevated to a position of moral and spiritual superiority. Women’s sin is often excused in light of a man’s failings. I remember hearing a very well known evangelical leader tell a story about how his wife freaked out and started smashing all their dishes. What was his point? That she did this because he had been neglecting her. See, she is not an adult beholden to practice self-control, but rather an innocent, sweet victim driven to outlandish behavior by his shortcomings.

“Toxic masculinity”, any masculinity inconvenient to a feminine-correct purpose, is a sin both actively and retroactively in today’s church.

With every successive generation of Beta pastors that are produced by this farm you get more and more men whose only experience of that religion is one of servile deference to a faith that’s been fundamentally altered to the utility of women and feminine-primacy. Women love to complain that it’s largely men who do the preaching and decision making in church, but what they ignore is that these men are the developed implements of the Feminine Imperative.

I will wager that in the next 10 years Christianity will be unrecognizable from its prior tenets of well defined conventional masculinity and the faith itself will expressly be centered on deference to the feminine.

Culture Informs Faith

I’ve had several critics tell me that the problem with the modern church is really one of its culture and should be considered apart from the ‘genuine’ faith, however it is church culture that ultimately informs and restructures doctrine and articles of faith. When that culture is informed by the Feminine Imperative, open Christian feminists, and a feminine influence posing as doctrinally sound egalitarianism, this fundamentally recreates an old order religion in the image of a new order, female-primary, imperative.

This and endless variations of the feminization of religion across every denomination and sect is why contemporary religion is openly hostile to any semblance of conventional masculinity. Church is no place for a single man and is just a formality for the man married to a religious woman at this point in time. All considerations of faith aside, I cannot fathom an adult man with any self-respect finding anything attractive about the modern church. Either there is nothing for him there or he is despised and denigrated, openly in a faith altering way or discreetly in resentment, or in pandering ridicule of his juvenilized maleness.

I don’t type this without a sincere sense of what’s been lost, particularly for men genuinely seeking existential answers for himself. My observations here will undoubtedly be thought of as some attack on a genuine faith, but my issue here isn’t with religion per se, but rather the thoroughness with which the Feminine Imperative has either subverted wholesale or covertly influenced really all modern religion.

Yes, I realize that faith is something personal that should be set apart from churchy social influence, but the culture is a manifestation of the doctrine and collective belief system. That culture ultimately modifies and informs the faith itself, thus with every successive generation that social influence becomes an article of the faith for the next.

Better to laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, especially when the ‘saints’ are the priestesses of the Feminine Imperative.

The Red Pill lens in today’s church is a scary prospect.

Another commenter, The Question, had a good comment about this:

You’re absolutely right about the state of the Church in the West.

What makes it so dangerous for a Blue Pill man is that it is ground-zero for girls entering the epiphany phase. The single men who remain in the church are the ones will be pressured to fulfill their role in that strategy and will be treated with hostility if they don’t. I personally anticipate a renewed church “man up” campaign somewhere in the near future as the next wave of twenty-somethings near 30 and beyond.

I’d say the only reason to go is to meet cute single young women and that’s if the church actually has them and its theology isn’t wholly intolerable. College town churches like mine have quite a few young single ladies which is why I go.

I will admit, putting aside conscience and morality, the modern (‘Relevant’) church would be a veritable untapped gold mine for a PUA savvy of christian culture. Churchianity’s already got the perfect social architecture installed for pick up. Christian women aching for sexy Alpha dominance in a sea of preconditioned christian Beta “good guys”, high intrasexual competition anxiety for both sexes, instant reconciliation and sin forgiveness for women, hell, you can even talk a woman into an abortion without her having any accountability for killing her child at this point. What’s not for a PUA to like? Feminine-primary churchianity has been waiting for christian-savvy players for years now.

Men with a well defined Red Pill lens, having the sensitivity to understand the subcommunications of what’s going on around them in church, should be rightly horrified.

This is one reason Men like Dalrock are vilified by Christian women who understand he’s wise to what’s transpiring in the church – the Feminine Imperative has taken the Lord’s name in vain by presuming to promote its agenda and socially engineer generations of men to support it by claiming it’s God’s will.

Read the Fempowerment narratives of any ‘Christian women’s ministry speaker’, they will defend the sisterhood above any tenets of faith. They’ll tolerate blasphemy of the faith, but never the Feminine Imperative. They’ll rationalize abortion as a man’s sin, but never accept accountability for it and any man to attempt to rebuke them (for anything really) is counter-shamed for male chauvinist judgementalism. And being judgemental of any woman is the most mortal of sins a man can make in the new church

In the feminine-primary church, the Holy Spirit is the Feminine Imperative, what she says is an article of faith. Men who become aware of this via the Red Pill are a danger to it.

I grew up in the modern American evangelical church and everything you said Rollo is true. I remember hearing the sermons telling me what a piece of shit I am for looking at the woman who shamelessly wore a tight skirt on Sunday morning. I remember nodding in agreement when the multimillion dollar pastor asked where are all the good men today? I watched in disbelief as married women after married women fucked the hawt worship leader or the 18 year old ministry leader, to eventually be taken back by her dejected husband and “forgiven,” while the rest of the congregation congratulated her for going through such an arduous ordeal.

I’m so glad I’m not a part of that any more. I would be laughing if it wasn’t such a tragedy. The church really has been taken over by the feminine imperative, and that really is a terrible tragedy. The church definitely talks about masculinity alright, and to an outsider’s perspective, you would think they’re all about supporting men. The problem is their view of masculinity is just to ensure her continual alpha fucks, beta bucks lifestyle. “You fucked the worship leader and ran off with your husband’s kids while he was on a 9 month deployment? Ahh, well, say a prayer and don’t listen to anyone that thinks you’re a shitty human, they haven’t gone through your temptations. You’re a stronger woman of God because of it. Welcome back. Now buy my book.”

Modern evangelical churches are beta factories. Enter at your own peril.

I was going to type up a super long page about how the church ruined the first 21 years of my life….but dont feel like it might do it later but basically

Being pastors son taught me

-Keep Yourself Pure until marriage ( tons of girls passed up)

-Your desires are wrong

-Hate myself ( Because i hate my dad ..because I believed the shit he taught me and hated myself because I could never impress him because I never wanted to do any of the shit in the church because it felt wrong but everything else felt wrong because i was taught the shit that felt wrong was right but w/e.

– How to be a bitch

– The world is evil and works for Satan and if you do anything successful your selling your soul unless its in the church.

So i devoloped shitty mindset cuz basically this stuff. I would go into more detail but i could go for years.

I hope you’ll improve. God knows that in a high school full of shitty people, the church seems like the only safe alternative for making friends/connections to someone young. That’s how it went for me anyway. And to have your own father teaching that to you…..hell on earth.

“– The world is evil and works for Satan and if you do anything successful your selling your soul unless its in the church.”

Sounds like you got the “poor worker bee” version of the sermon.

Whatever happened to Matthew 5:16?

“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

Islam is the solution. It is the only religion that has remained impervious to the Feminine Imperative in the modern world. Nietzsche despised both Judaism and Christianity as religions that weakened men, but admired Islam for its masculine outlook, the only religion to embrace his idea of the “will to power.”

I know that Islam is hated by a great many people in the manosphere who see it as a threat to their own religious and cultural identities. But as Rollo, suggests here (with visceral sorrow), Western religious and cultural identities are irreversibly destined for decline under the Feminine Imperative.

Men seeking a faith where they can be proud to be men will not find it in Judaism or Christianity any more. They can still find it in Islam, where they can take up to 4 wives without apology. And where Islamic divorce law heavily favors men — men can divorce their wives by simply proclaiming 3 times “I divorce you.” And in most Islamic schools of thought, men receive automatic custody of the children. Muslim women are given a “mahr” at the time of marriage, which is a one-time sum that they they can keep if they are divorced or widowed, and that is pretty much the extent of alimony in Islam. No divorce rape. Men and women pray separately in every mosque in the world, and women pray behind men. Period. Unchanged for 1400 years.

You can go ahead and hate Islam because you think it is a false religion based on your own beliefs (in fairness, Muslims also believe in Moses & Jesus, so they are not radically different in their cosmology from either Judaism or Christianity). And you can hate Islam by assuming that most of its followers are violent radicals (they aren’t, which is clear to anyone who actually has Muslim friends). Your hatred won’t change demographic reality that Muslims are reproducing and Westerners (particularly Europeans) are not. And your hatred won’t change the fact that it offers the only masculine path in a world collapsing under the Feminine Imperative.

Those realities mean that Islam will win the competition of civilizations, whether you like it or not. Already we are seeing Western women, especially in Europe, marrying Muslim men in preference to their own men, because they see them as “real men.” That is the real reason feminists in Europe support Muslim migration and remain silent about Muslim sexual aggressiveness in European societies. In their hearts (and their loins), European women are sexually aroused by aggressive Muslim males. Women are making their choice of religion by choosing who they sleep with.

There is great book called “Religion Is Not About God” by Loyal D. Rue, which argues that the evolutionary purpose of religion is to promote reproduction. And any religion that fails to do that will die out. Its nature’s ruthless law. Christianity in the West has embraced the Feminine Imperative and has decided to go down with the ship of Western culture, where marriage and reproduction are failing due to the pathologies of feminism. Islam is stubbornly unchanging in its masculine values, and that is why it will be the last religion left standing.

Quoted in a Rational Male post: Cross that line off of my “100 things to accomplish before I die” list.

To get some kind of comparison to what’s happening today, I would highly recommend reading “Tortured for Christ” by Richard Wurmbrand. He was a Romanian pastor imprisoned for 14 years by the communists in his native land. When the communists took over the country they put “their” people in charge of the churches in order to ensure that religion didn’t present a threat. The religion became so co-opted that its doctrine was wholly Marxist and the “real” church went completely underground.

We are either at that point or nearing it quickly, especially when self-described heathens point out that feminism has as much in common with biblical teachings as satanism.

You’ve mentioned before, Rollo that the current Church as an institution is not salvageable and I heartily agree. If there is ever a church with a red pill lens it will be formed and grow in an informal manner- my guess is that it will also be either church “refugees” like me or red pill men who converted to the faith that form it. Attempting to reform the current setup is a fool’s errand.

The more I internalize red pill thinking the more intolerable I find the modern church and count myself fortunate to have unplugged from the Matrix before making life-altering decisions based on churchian thinking.

Christian women aching for sexy Alpha dominance in a sea of preconditioned christian Beta “good guys”, high intrasexual competition anxiety for both sexes, instant reconciliation and sin forgiveness for women, hell, you can even talk a woman into an abortion without her having any accountability for killing her child at this point. What’s not for a PUA to like? Feminine-primary churchianity has been waiting for christian-savvy players for years now.

RT, you’d destroy the church around the men who are trying to reform it, evidently out of nihilistic revenge?

Do not lose your faith. Even a grain of faith will be used by God for his glory.

Christians, you would do well to keep the PUA wolves away from the flock, along with the feminist she-wolves. Until they repent of their sins, they should be welcomed but not affirmed or put in positions of trust or leadership. Show them the door if they remain unrepentant and insist. Leave and find (or plant) another church if they already occupy the leadership.

The church is worth saving. Islam will continue to raise up men who are willing to kill for their cause. Christians must be willing to die for theirs. God uses cowards too. Forget chasing women, they are NOT the prize. The prize is attaining brotherhood with Jesus. Men of stout heart will be needed in the years ahead, both to fight the advance of Islam and also the fascists that will inevitably emerge from the equally bloodthirsty elements on the Alt-Right.

Women are not God. God has given men authority in the church. Assert it, clean house or build a new one. If you’re a coward, team up with a man who is not and pray God would grant you his courage. Rebuild the temple. Rebuild it brick by brick, heart by heart, man by man.

Minefield. Christianity has been under attack. In the manosphere is a large section of men harping away on christian religion as the only force remaining that can conserve societal values which define civilization. Very close to this is another thread of thought that (correctly) identifies the white male as a target in an unrelenting onslaught on that civilization. This tends to place the white male section of the manosphere in a very secluded position, a position in which it is hard for the rest of the manosphere to empathise with him without sounding like a woman pretending to empathise with the plight of men. I think this article begins to broach the periphery of the minefeild that religion and race is to the manosphere.

You blithely ignore innumerable problems with Islam. Yes, it’s more patriarchal, but despite all the problems caused by our current matriarchy, matriarchy’s not the root of all cause of every problem.

For example, although Islam is great for the top-tiered men with seven wives, lower-tiered men get zilch, not unlike what happens here. But under Islam it’s institutionalized. We see how unproductive men can be in our own society when they’ve no chance to mate; that happens under Islam too, albeit for different reasons.

Hence Islam’s inability, both historically and currently, or ever being able to produce much of anything. Islam grew in economic power through piracy, extracting taxes on trade routes, and expropriating the wealth of all the lands it conquered. Sounds great and it works for a while until your adversaries halt your battlefield advances and/or innovate (by sailing to the Americans instead of putting up with your crap on the silk road) and there’s no more wealth to steal. Then one day you’ve nothing, and you’re unable to turn that around. Hell, even today the Saudis couldn’t even refine or export their own oil without foreign contractors doing all the work for them.

Likewise, because Islam deprives so much of its male population of any sexual opportunity, military conquest is necessary to find new women. It’s also a great way to turn men into martyrs for access to all those virgins.

Christianity in its actual form was a much more productive way of incorporating and working with sexual instincts both male and female to create productive societies. Alphas and women had to sacrifice aspects of their imperatives, but men of all backgrounds had hopes for a wife and family and thus a stake in society. Feminism, churchianity, and Islam all exacerbate the problems of the vast majority of men.

@ Jacob
(slow clap)
Thank you for so skilfully mimicking the usual crap that many Churchian leaders tell only half of their congregations when they tell them to “man up”. Satire is often a clever way of showing the truth, like looking over your shoulder with a mirror.
I will not hold my breath for the Church leadership to volunteer to be the first to make the ultimate sacrifice, nor do I expect them to exhort the women to do so (and even less would I expect the women to answer such a call).
No, the Church is not worth saving, unless you are referring to the Church as the body of believers, and not the organisational structure.
Faith is a good thing; organised religion… not so much.

I did RCIA a few years ago. For those who don’t know, that’s Catholic Sunday School for adults. Takes a long time; classes every week for nine months or so. I can confirm that it was nauseatingly Blue Pill, and all the men there were 100% beta. The discussion of the Bible passage “wives submit to your husbands” was particularly hilarious, as the priest explained that this really meant “mutual submission” and all the men in the class eagerly nodded their heads in agreement.

Incidentally, Rollo, I just finished both your books. They are a tremendous achievement. Well done. Sure wish I’d had them when I was in high school. But, the internet didn’t even exist then, let alone the manosphere. I am keeping them aside for when my son reaches ninth grade, along with certain other “classics” like the Book of Pook.

Thank you Rollo, this resonates strongly with me. I found your site through Donal’s blog in early 2015 and have been reading and applying as much as I can ever since.

It’s really disconcerting to observe the church’s underlying dynamics and to receive IOIs from even those I once considered to be spiritually mature women. Everything I thought I knew was a lie.

I must confess my faith has been shaken, and I am now rather agnostic. I do want to believe God exists (intelligent design etc) but I can no longer trust the messages I hear from the pulpit, and also ponder the veracity of the Bible’s claim of divine inspiration.

This blog, along with all its red pill commnenters, rescued me from a very dark place. I thank you all.

TL;DR
Was raised a complete atheist by an atheist father within a hard-core catholic society. My only exposure to church was weddings and funerals. Experienced the ‘outcast’ mindset a bit when younger but as an adult in today’s largely secular society I don’t see any trace of it. Don’t miss it and never will. Even my kids are not baptized.
I seriously think there’s no need for intelligent logical people to keep supporting religion – not even to keep up appearances. But that’s just me.

I credit religion for having a huge role in severely fucking me up. Christianity is essentially founded on a madonna/whore complex. Add in a shitload of shame for sexual urges and rage for having to suppress them, turn the other cheek and let people walk all over you… It’s not a good recipe. All this, and I didn’t even believe a single fucking word of it… It conditioned me anyway. I don’t care if Christianity is “reformed” or is purged of the FI… It will still continue to fuck people up. I agree with Joe Rogan that Christianity was formed and practiced with psychedelics, and when you look at in the sense that Heaven is your id, and Hell is your ego… Yeah, maybe some of the lessons in the Bible make sense… But that’s not how they teach it these days. It’s just moralizing against sex and drugs, and being “good” and suppressing who you actually are. I’m still working on cleansing myself from that shit.

Any “morals” that go against the fundamental core of who you are will only fuck you up. Every person needs to decide for themselves what is right or wrong.

The book that first opened my eyes to the feminization of the church was “The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity” by Leon Podles. Many churches nowadays (mostly non-evangelical) have become 60-90% women as the men have been driven (or bored) out.

“What’s not for a PUA to like? Feminine-primary churchianity has been waiting for christian-savvy players for years now.”

Even in my blue pill days, us churchgoing teenage boys knew that basic fact.Back then picking up girls in church was way easier then school or the club; no cover charge, you got to wear a suit , and food was free.

“Men with a well defined Red Pill lens, having the sensitivity to understand the subcommunications of what’s going on around them in church, should be rightly horrified.”

Why? Every modern institution from the college hallways to the church pews to the US military only cares about one gender- and it’s not ours. This is a day and age where a male celebrity gets a personalized SWAT visit if he dares boot a privlidged woman out of his mansion.

To borrow a phrase from The Wire, it ain’t our turn to give a f**k. So ,except the literal use of the term I don’t.

@Rhett, don’t be so certain about Islam being any insurance against the Feminine Imperative. It’s easy to look at fundamentalist Islam and think that men have an iron grip on women, but more westernized Islam, which is to say the majority of its adherents, in more affluent countries is a much different story.

You will see in these affluent societies how the FI is covertly altering the faith and bringing even those Patriarchal societies to heel.

@Jacob, don’t take my suggesting PUA infiltrate Christian culture as some literal advocation of it. Rather, understand that the subculture is so feminized now that it has become ripe for exactly this to occur. It’s a statement of how far this feminine-primary influence has saturated the church.

What else could one expect from a religion that lauds cuckoldry in the first chapter of the first book of its New Testament: “His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant.” (Matthew 1:18) Cucked Joseph stayed. Maybe later the Beta Carpenter castrated himself as Mary’s cuckspawn recommended to males. (Matthew 19.11-12)

lol @ guys thinking PUAs aren’t already in your churches slaying poon and like there aren’t Christians learning PUA (and other religions, including ones that frown on sex). You think having a boner is going to make you burn up when you walk through the church doors? You think these priests aren’t fucking nuns and shit while telling you to feel ashamed about sex? lol

For the agnostic or areligious man, discarding a Blue Pill social conditioning for a Red Pill awareness is a difficult task, but for men raised to believe that their only doctrinally approved path to sex with a woman is abstinence until marriage, that man’s only hope is to accept his fate and stay the Beta a feminized church has conditioned him to be.

Religion (Christianity in particular) has always been about subjugation of the populace for the purpose of serving its current leadership. Think about the function of marriage, for instance. You want to grow your base of followers to increase your power. How do you do this? One clever idea is to declare that the strongest drive humans (particularly men) have is to declare it sinful in basic church doctrine, then make the church the sole provider of the only way to make it less sinful: marriage. Now that you’ve got a monopoly on sex itself, enjoy your power.

When the church was taken over by the FI zeitgeist, the current state of affairs was all but inevitable. It has men in the church quite literally by the balls by design. What did you think women would do with that? Turning it in to the modern Single Mom Support System ™ it became was the only outcome that was possible.

I recently read a study that our current generation is the least religious in history and I think as far as men are concerned much of that disdain for religion is attributable to a church culture that constantly and openly ridicules and debases any male-specific endeavors or anything characteristic of conventional masculinity. It’s no secret in today’s church franchisement that reaching out to, and retaining the interests of, men is at its most difficult.

I suspect the dynamics of this are far more complex, particularly with the way that kids are exposed to influences from outside the church community so much earlier these days. Views opposing and debunking church dogma are available the moment one experiences doubt, and communities willing to support those leaving are far more readily available than they were when I faced parental wrath for my apostasy almost 20 years ago. For the record, it wasn’t just about how males were treated that drove me away. It was about the weaponized guilt over merely being human that the church uses as a cornerstone of its control over followers. My need for personal freedom overrides my need for a sky daddy.

I don’t type this without a sincere sense of what’s been lost, particularly for men genuinely seeking existential answers for himself. My observations here will undoubtedly be thought of as some attack on a genuine faith, but my issue here isn’t with religion per se, but rather the thoroughness with which the Feminine Imperative has either subverted wholesale or covertly influenced really all modern religion.

The dynamics that have allowed the FI to do what it’s done are the same ones that have kept modern Christianity from being the violent shitstorm that modern Islam still is. Christianity became subject to secular societal influences beginning with the Enlightenment, which served both a tempering role that allowed for the modern First World to develop out of far more peaceful societies, but also sowed the eventual seeds of Christianity’s eventual destruction.

I honestly think what we’re looking at is the death throes of Christianity as a whole, and the FI taking it over is just a symptom of that impending end. Men should seek to become authorities in their own right instead of seeking it through ancient religious doctrine. Otherwise the only game left in town will be Islam, and we’ve seen how that shit works out. Ugh.

Also, to Andy and Mersonia, I completely understand where you’re coming from. I too fell into the traditional Evangelical (mis)understanding of the Lord’s words about lust in Matthew 5. It’s been in recent years where I and many others have realized that those verses were meant to prevent self-righteousness, not promote sexual repression. When you’re a young man who associates guilt and shame with every sexual urge/thought/desire/dream, bad things happen. Just ask Josh Duggar.

I know a part of you probably winces whenever you hear “God” and “church,” but I hope you’ll be able to make the distinction between the two.

One clever idea is to declare that the strongest drive humans (particularly men) have is sinful in basic church doctrine, then make the church the sole provider of the only way to make it less sinful: marriage.

Great post. I am a red-pill Christian man and agree with almost everything you wrote. Even though I am a member of the oldest and most traditional “denomination” where women are required to wear headscarves while in church (as a symbol of obedience and humility – how smart was that!), not allowed to preach (as the apostle Paul wisely said), even in that super-traditionalist environment you can see creeping feminism winning because men are totally ignorant of the ugly truth.

Women understand that all our “traditionalism” is reduced to just meaningless formalities. Yes, they gladly wear headscarves and long dresses, but while men deep inside feel “guilty” about how “backward” and “oppressive” we are, women completely understand the charade and just use it to additionally disguise their almost unlimited power over men. They love charades, being naturally masters of deception they just use pretense of humility and piety to acquire more power. Disgusting!

I don’t want to get into religious stuff here, but Christos was (and is) completely opposite of a blue-pill men. He was strong and did not take any b/s from anyone. Ultimate red-pill Man.

Yes really, but if you had any respect for other men you would never react in that way. First, respect the author of this excellent blog. Second, respect me as your fellow man – even when you disagree you should not ridicule other men. We are brothers in arms and should stick together.

the subculture is so feminized now that it has become ripe for exactly this to occur. It’s a statement of how far this feminine-primary influence has saturated the church.

@ Rollo

That was understood. Need to be careful how you pitch this. The fact that prophecy is often self-fulfilling is enough reason not to plant a distracting seed in the minds of men who have a greater mission before them.

Using “respect” as a euphemism for “do not criticize” is a cowardly dodge of honest discussion. If your beliefs can’t withstand criticism without complaints of “disrespect”, then you might want to reconsider them.

@Rollo: I’ve followed Dalrock’s blog for a bit too; based on his articles it seems the contemporary churchian group is akin to a commissar’s meeting to find out who is in sin – when the foregone conclusion is it is the men, of course, at fault and that’s the reason the 5-year plan failed.

In parallel to @Jovan (perhaps) I am baffled as to how non-liturgical groups consider what they do as worship.

You may think me just a silly woman and your probably right. But I am a silly woman who is disgusted with the false church prevalent today. I totally agree with the assessment of “the church” and the feminization of men. It has been evident to me since becoming a believer in 03 that there is something dreadfully wrong with the “church” in more ways than just the feminization. It’s not scriptural all the way around. So I left the “church” and follow my Savior by His word and His Holy Spirit.

I believe the core of the feminization issue is basically a rerun of the garden. Eve was the one that was deceived, yet Adam was standing right next to her and didn’t stop or correct her. Then Eve offered to Adam and instead of refusing, he joined in. So both are at fault.

Remember we have an adversary, the one who brought the deception. He has done it again and has infiltrated the original church with lies. A deeper investigation will show that what has been woven into our church and society is the feminine based, Gaia, earth worship, gnostic idea that woman are superior and men are an inferior after thought. This was done to destroy the church and her power over the adversary. Your fight is not against women but the adversary and his lies that woman has believed and man has allowed and even partaken in order to absolve himself of any responsibility. You know, the blame game. Men and women are to blame for the condition of the church. We have to find the balance of equal responsibility. Historically, this is an orchestrated pendulum swing to the opposite of the total oppression of women. The lies really appealed to overly dominated women and they ran with it to the extreme.

Eve was taken from Adam and therefore is a part of Adam and Adam is a part of Eve. We are to be partners, working together. The man is the head, the woman supports his headship. The woman should never cause a man to be less than what he is, only more. Scripture tells men that they are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. And women are to respect their husbands. Those commands go hand in hand. When a man truly loves and adores his wife, she will do more than respect him, she will give herself in all ways to him, gladly. The key here is “true love” not lust. Marriage for fleshly gratification will always fail. There has to be genuine desire beyond the flesh for the one you call spouse. Sex for itself is fleshly gratification, with genuine love, sex is the way we show each other how much we love and we don’t want to refuse the one we love.

As far as sex wars. Truth is, sex controls are taught to women and also a self defense mechanism for women who are not loved by their men. Women also deal with libido issues just like men. According to scripture, neither the man or his wife are to withhold sex from each other. To do so is to rebel against God.

My personal issues with “church” licensed marriages is that they are NOT church licensed, they are state licensed for legal and mammon related issues. The church really has nothing to do with it. Scripturally, as soon as a man and a woman have sex, they are married according to God. And last I checked, Gods opinion supersedes mans or woman’s opinions.

To top all of the feminist infiltration. MEN< STOP EATING ANYTHING WITH SOY. It's estrogen based food and it's in almost everything. Eat grass fed meats. For poultry, eat only free range no hormone meats. Most animals are fed estrogen based foods which gets into the meat then you eat it. And processed foods are loaded with estrogen based ingredients. Learn all the names for soy/estrogen and read the labels. If you are what you eat, then your being hormonally feminized as well as culturally feminized. Any wonder we have a Nation of gender confusion? Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but there has been an agenda the do exactly what has been done to you. Week men make a week Nation which makes it really easy to take over because they are to week to fight.

As a woman who likes and wants red pill manly men. Please, stand up and be the testosterone filled MEN we so desperately need!

No, you did not “criticize”. Honest discussion does not start with “Hahaha”. It start with an honest question – “Hey Jovan, then how do you explain this?” I am not afraid at all to defend my position – but the author clearly stated he does not want any religious discussions here, so I will respect that.

We have exchanged a few blows, so let’s leave it at that. It is a manly thing to do.

Hahaha, if you don’t want me laughing, stop making humorous statements. Criticism is not going to come in a carefully packaged form, gently padded for your safe consumption. And your post clearly opened the religious discussion can o’ worms by asserting the old “Jesus is so redpill” chestnut that gets bandied around from time to time. Expecting it to remain unassailable is amusing to me. Explicitly defining the “manly thing to do” is hilarious as well.

As an agnostic(By personal growth and decision making) Anglican (By birth and culture) I can say at this point in my life that Christianity seems like the ultimate shit test for men. Only really matched by modern feminism in the level of psychological torture visited upon men.

You are told from the get go that you are broken, failed, born flawed and that really, you will never actually measure up, there is always one more hill to climb, one more sin to avoid or self flagellate over and so on. It’s so ripe for abuse by Authority figures, regardless of their gender that it makes me deeply suspicious of the arguments in support of it.

In University when I went through my first year program it really deconstructed who you were as a person and made you challenge all your assumptions about life etc. My program, Architecture, did not say any one belief was bad, it simply forced you to challenge your own assumptions about life, spirituality etc. It was fun because we had a very smart cohort of people with wide and varied backgrounds. Many faiths etc. It was at this time I learned about the idea of Paradigms as systems of thought and behaviour and how I came to look at various organized religions simply as paradigms. To my mind if you are smart, and worldly you can pretty much figure out your own paradigm, meaning the terms upon which you are going to live your own life.

Religion on the other hand is useful for people who don’t have the time, skill, knowledge, or world experience to figure out how to order their lives, so those people can sign up for a pre-packaged paradigm about how the world works and go along with that, be it Christian, Agnostic, Mulsim etc. Religion sits on top of and moderates the general social contract and helps organize how people live and work with each other in the broadest possible terms.

Personally I think Christianity lost the plot and the moral authority it had in North America over the latter part of the last century. It failed in the culture wars and it blew all it’s credibility with Catholic priests regularly diddling little boys and girls in complete contradiction with its stated goals and aims. In Canada the church fucked it up big time with its shitty treatment of first nations people etc and it’s general self serving hypocrisies. Leaning over backwards to accommodate or to try and win over the feminists only waters down the faith and makes bad into worse and Rollo has so artfully outlined in his essay.

don’t feel bad, I hold similar contempt for Islam in that regard. To the extent that many devout Muslims seem to like raping little boys and treating women in general like Chattel, I cannot say I can get behind it. In that same vein I will tread into the political here and simply say that in my experience devout Muslim practices and beliefs are really totally incompatible with the Western project in general and I will offer no quarter to those that would aim to dismantle the Western project wholesale (This includes cultural Marxists, Feminists etc).

Now all of that being said, I still support religion for the masses. It’s the only thing that regularly looks at and studies morality in living culture for many people. In our secular society we are indeed unmoored from any rational moral base that is common to all of our people. This lack of moral unity will indeed be the demise of the West for without a kind of moral unity, when things get hard, divisions will harden and things will break down fast into tribal thinking, like it already is. The FI will enjoy the chaos, until it doesn’t…..We will all be left looking into the Nihlistic abyss of moral relativism that progressive culture is leading us into.

The decline in male control started in the 1850s to 1870s, when women got the right to own property in marriage. This was in Britain, the epicenter of the noxious tidal wave of bullshit.

For all of history before then, there was nostate-sanctioned push for female rights. So something happened, something big. The question is what?

I may address that question on my website (click on my name to go there) but for now I’m too busy celebrating Charlie Sheen and dissecting the fall of Communism to bother.

But I will say this. Women have always been emotionally mighty — but intellectually slow and stupid. It’s like they’re getting a new playbook. You know NFL football? When the couch gives you a bunch of moves, with coded words like “Blue 41! Blue 41! Hike, hike, hike!” And then the QB runs for it? Well, the women have been running for it real goodfor the past 160 years. And that’s highly fucking suspicious.

Women are oafs. They use their mental edge to sledgehammer men into submission, not through sex, not through the Feminine Imperative, but through emotional dominance. I have challenged chicks enough times in my life, but all it results in is men coming after me. This is emotional ju jitsu on the most fundamental level.

Yet — once again — if you look at the behavior of women, they exhibit a truly startling lack of forethought. They are sheep being led by sheep. With their giddy laughs and girlish smiles and simpering steps down the cobblestoned path, they exhibit NONE of the command-authority-functions that would enable them to function in a coordinated way that would enable them to usurp Men’s System. Which they have done in a short century in a half.

Ah well … *leaning back and steeplng my fingers in front of my stomach* Perhaps I’ll have some tips for how to deal with the cunts on my website. I’m certainly engaging with them now … the way Klingon starships engaged with the goodie-goodie Federation.

I do not expect anything from you. Just saying that if you want to get your question answered you have to get out, knock on the door again and ask it nicely. What you are doing here is typical feminine stuff – “I can act like a bitch and you have to play nice, otherwise you are weak”. No my friend. It starts with you starting the conversation respectfully.

If you want to bitch test and play games with me you have run into a wrong man. I am not going to waste any more of my time with you.

Rollo, I too am hesitant to even mention Christianity on my blog http://BestToolsForMen.com for the exact same reasons. Not because I’m ashamed of Christ, but because I cannot recommend any church in my area for a red pill minded person. You and Dalrock dive deep into red pill territory, while I’m focusing more on a beginners primer.

And the point about churches being the PUA happy hunting ground is too true. It was like that 30 years ago when I was single, and even more so now. Shame on them for exposing their young women instead of protecting them.

Here’s a Red Pill churchians need to swallow: the reason the FI is kicking Christian men’s asses is because you’re constrained by your own rules to a very narrow way of thinking and viewing the world. The FI is driven by the same feminine pragmatism often discussed here. That same pragmatism thinks around you to find ways to exploit your own rules for use against you.

Expecting guys like me to “respect” those views (i.e. not criticize them, or only criticize using a rule set you decide) is why you find yourself blindsided by how I look down on them.

“How could anyone possibly be critical of your morally superior stance and way of life? How could they possibly approach it with laughter and amusement? Why do they not instantly apologize when I call them disrespectful?”

Because I don’t obey your rules when you expect me to. Because the FI won’t obey your rules when you expect it to. Because you may apply your rules to yourself and yourself alone. You only come across as a butthurt, weak child when you express your complaints about how opposition deals with you.

My exchange with Jovan illustrates why Christian men are getting positively destroyed. You come across as petulant children, upset that the other kids won’t play by the rules you play by. Being that kid is a great way to be miserable and encourage other kids to further antagonize you.

Even if the church does recover and become less feminine-centric, it will have to correct the way that its own rules have been used against it. Otherwise the men in it will continue to pull from a play book that sets them up to fail against outside forces that won’t obey their rules.

” it’s not who executes the control, but whose beliefs control the executors.”

There it is, in the proverbial nut shell. The beliefs of gynocentric feminazism control all the executors, male and female, and that is the problem. I’m a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ, that His death and resurrection are have atoning efficacy, and that He has the keys of hell and of death. But I cannot stand what has become of the post modern gynocentric feminazified “church.” Up with it I will not put.

OK, this is actually good stuff. You exchange with me shows how strong FI actually is.

Take a look at our conversation and you can easily notice that I am not at all concerned what you think about my faith and convictions. I was trying to warn you about your feminine behavior – which is what should be discussed here.

Almost every sentence in your latest post is typical feminine b/s. Full of deflection etc. You are only concerned about what you think about Christianity and keep bitching about your “feelings” while not even noticing that I don’t give a heck about what you think about that. Typical feminine behavior (I assume you are not a girl…). I never asked you to “respect my views”, I have asked you to respect ME. Real men respect other men.

@jovan,
your ego investment in the Church is showing, thin skin and all that.

If you have rational forceful arguments, you should have no issue rolling up your sleeves and getting into the muck of a debate here at RM. Preening about “respect” at this point only paints you with a brush of self righteous weakness. This is a locker room not a tea room, act accordingly.

Life is as it should be at the RM forum, you earn the respect of others, you don’t presume it like a chick would.

Been there breifly. I have no stomach for it. Not that I do not fully appreciate and identify with the divergent points of view in there…but I would rather not stick in that place. It is a quagmire of controversy. Not that TRM is not. But the perspective in here is alittle bit more sane. Kudos Rollo.

Christ took BS from people and also confronted them. “Turn the other cheek” is part of Christ’s frame. That doesn’t necessarily prevent Christians from confronting people. Christ’s ideas still exert a lot of influence in the world today. Hence, his frame is quite powerful. Blue pillers take what they like from Christ’s frame and discard what they don’t like.

Our church recently brought in a young, pudgy mangina blue pill pastor with a behemoth for a wife. He taught a lesson of scripture on THE FAMILY from Ephesians and I assured my wife: “This should be good!” It was.

He managed to ignore the entire message of Ephesians: “Wives submit to your husbands as you do to the Lord…husbands love your wives like Christ loved the Church.”

Instead, he went with this passage:

“Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”

When our old pastor retires and this young cuck takes over I am leaving that church forever.

@JacobRT, you’d destroy the church around the men who are trying to reform it, evidently out of nihilistic revenge?

It’s not about revenge, it’s about recognizing the new reality and acting accordingly. Much as I hate to say it, the modern American Evangelical church is now in a situation comparable to the townsfolk populating Invasion of the Body Snatchers, in that you have something that looks like the traditional church and occasionally even talks like it, but in actuality is only a look-alike imitation that subverted the real thing long ago and now exists solely to spread the same corruption to the rest of the planet.

If that’s the reality of the church, then it can’t ever be rebellion against God to disobey its leaders, and it can’t ever be Christian persecution to work for its destruction. Far from it. In fact, I’d put it as a prime duty for any true follower of Christ to strike out against an institution that wears His name while simultaneously doing everything it can to undermine His words.

>>women…exhibit a truly startling lack of forethought. They are sheep being led by sheep. With their giddy laughs and girlish smiles and simpering steps down the cobblestoned path, they exhibit NONE of the command-authority-functions that would enable them to function in a coordinated way that would enable them to usurp Men’s System.

Certainly not by themselves but they have lots and lots of help from the men they recruit to do their bidding.

Saying this got me banned from Dalrock but I will say it again: When men lost their “conjugal rights” in marriage, this gave women the ultimate nuclear weapon to seize control of the relationship, and this is how they gained control.

Once women had the full power of sexual denial which was legally granted only in the 1950’s, they then had all the tools to defeat the patriarchy with their giddy laughs and girlish smiles.

Somebody offends a woman- ANY woman? Hooooonnnnnneeeeey. That man was mean. Do something about it.

Cue the White Knight- I have to listen to her because she has the pussy.

Game. Set. Match.

@ Jovan:

Jesus is a “Beta?” I don’t think so.

>>>So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts…and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”

Also quite relevant to this discussion is Jesus confronting the Pharisees- who would have been sitting prominently in the front row right in front of him!!!

>>>Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:

2 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. 3 So obey everything they teach you, but don’t do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else.

4 They pile heavy burdens on people’s shoulders and won’t lift a finger to help. 5 Everything they do is just to show off in front of others. They even make a big show of wearing Scripture verses on their foreheads and arms, and they wear big tassels[a] for everyone to see.

13-14 You Pharisees and teachers of the Law of Moses are in for trouble! You’re nothing but show-offs. You lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. You won’t go in yourselves, and you keep others from going in.[b]

That is no Beta. Give me a break. Some of His message seems “Beta” to us today because He was trying to decrease the powerful patriarchy that dis empowered women then as much as men are dis empowered today. Instead of the message being delivered to weak, simpering men by weak, simpering pastors, imagine the message delivered to grizzled men who owned their wives and family. Men who set bones and buried their own children. His message was to temper overbearing men who used their power to harm others. Today, those men barely exist except as psychopathic dark triad types and I believe His message to men today would be very different- although given everything Paul wrote, it would be hard to be more clear about the role of women. How can the clear instructions on submission and sexual availability be so completely ignored by these frauds?

In today’s church, “Masculinity”‘s sole purpose is to serve women. You’re not a man unless you’re doing something for a woman, serving a woman, or preparing to serve women.

Anything a man does must be for a woman’s benefit, or it is of no use, value or purpose. Men’s groups in churches today do not exist to build men up for their own edification. Rather, the entire focus of men’s groups and men’s ministries is to “build men up” not for themselves; but so they can better serve their wives, or to prepare them to be husbands and fathers.

What is missing is that you can’t send a male out to be a husband or father until he is a Man. You can’t send him out to marriage until you’ve made a Man out of him. And you can’t make a Man out of a male by teaching him to serve women.

Men are supposed to build value for themselves and for the glory of their Maker. Men, you build it for YOU. You build it, make it, create it and gather it for YOU, FIRST. Then, if you want to, you can let a woman into your world, the world you built for you.

Rollo states the crux of the problem – it is all in the service of the FI. But where the rubber meets the road is that men are being pressed into the service of women. Everything about churchian society now has nothing to do with making Men.

Everyone knows the tale of the Scribes and the Pharisees, and how Jesus reprimanded them for being false prophets and liars.

The most “Christian” thing a man could do these days would be to rebel against the church and its propagating of the Feminine Imperative. Like Jesus went into the temples and flipped over the tables of gambler’s and chased everyone out with a whip.

I don’t associate with Christianity at all, or religion at all, in any way, shape or form.

But from an outsider’s observation, that seems like the most appropriate course of action if you’re a true believer in and follower of Jesus.

Keep in mind what happened to Jesus for rebelling and preaching the “Truth,” and calling everyone else out on their lies and BS.

Try being a pastor preaching an entire sermon about how wives should be submissive to their husbands. Could you imagine the responses? Try dropping some RP truth bombs (with Biblical citations, of course) and watch the jaws drop.

Try preaching ANYTHING about men’s natural leadership role, without going the Purple Pill route and shitting out some BS like “women are mutual leaders too, though.”

Viciously attack the positions of the modern church and openly condemn its embracing of the Feminine Imperative. Jesus certainly didn’t pull any punches with his condemnations of the Scribes and the Pharisees.

How do you think people would react if you suggested that marriage is no longer Christian, no longer as it was intended to be, and that the most Christian thing to do would be to forego marriage until the laws were changed in a way that made it a favorable deal for men?

Today’s equivalent of crucifixion could be social crucifixion: being labeled a misogynist, being slandered, etc.

If an actual priest had the stones to go this route and start preaching from a RP perspective, how much longer do you think he would remain in his position? What would happen to him?

There is a reason for the attacks on men and the family…it is to facilitate the destruction of God pattern for men, women, children and the family. It is explained on my website….www.knowingforyourself.com
On the home page clink on the tap in the upper right hand corner “The Church”. It give a lot of information but the 3rd and 4th post are most relevant to the topic here. Best to all and their loved ones. Daniel

Once, a bitch came to our church and started shit testing: “I love the Church, but you guys are weak and cannot satisfy a woman”. Then my priest introduced her to a few guys from our group and told to give her a lesson. Within a week one of the guys fucked her insane… She never bitched again.

Of course, that is what he privately instructed us to do, no way he could preach that in public. God bless the old man! Thank you! 🙂

From F.W. Robertson, who, by the way, was preaching in Brighton in the mid 1800’s, which Nikolic mentioned in his earlier post:

(Robertson has plenty of his own issues stemming from inner sexual conflict and as far as Nikolic’s comment goes, I can only imagine Robertson could be a good case study surrounding the start of the Feminine Imperative’s influence in the church)…

There is a cowardice in this age which is not Christian. We shrink from the consequences of truth. We look round and cling dependently. We ask what men will think – what others will say – whether they will not stare in astonishment. Perhaps they will; but he who is calculating that, will accomplish nothing in this life. The Father – the Father who is with us and in us – what does He think? God’s work can not be done without a spirit of independence. A man is got some way in the Christian life when he has learned to say humbly and yet majestically, “I dare to be alone.”

Lastly, remark the humility of this loneliness. Had the Son of man simply said, I can be alone, He would have said no more than any proud, self-relying man can say. But when he added, “because the Father is with me,” that independence assumed another character, and self-reliance became only another form of reliance upon God. Distinguish between genuine and spurious humility. There is a false humility which says, “It is my own poor thought, and I must not trust it. I must distrust my own reason and judgment, because they are my own. I must not accept the dictates of my own conscience, for it is not my own, and is not trust in self the great fault of our fallen nature?”

Very well. Now remember something else. There is a Spirit which beareth witness with our spirits; there is a God who “is not far from any one of us;” there is a “Light which lighteth every man which cometh into the world.” Do not be unnaturally humble. The thought of your mind, perchance, is the thought of God. To refuse to follow that may be to disown God. To take the judgment and conscience of other men to live by, where is the humility of that? From whence did their conscience and judgment come? Was the fountain from which they drew exhausted for you? If they refuse like you to rely on their own conscience, and you rely upon it, how are you sure that it is more the mind of God than your own which you have refused to hear?

Look at it in another way. The charm of the words of great men – those grand sayings which are recognized as true as soon as heard – is this, that you recognize them as wisdom which has passed across your own mind. You feel that they are your own thoughts come back to you, else you would not at once admit them: “All that floated across me before, only I could not say it, and did not feel confident enough to assert it, or had not conviction enough to put it into words.” Yes, God spoke to you what He did to them: only they believed it, said it, trusted the Word within them, and you did not.

I did not ask for your attention and I do not need it. But if you have something to ask me and expect an answer this is not how it works. Now you are butt-hurt, can’t stop scratching and it only hurts more…

I give Islam credit for one thing. It realizes what Christians are learning right now: the only way to get people (believers and non-believers alike) to play by religious rules long term is to enforce them via political dominance and the threat of violence. It’s a deplorable death cult that should be fought at every turn, but it’s the only way an ultra-conservative set of religious beliefs can maintain its form long term. A religion can prolong its life through changing with the times which Christian religions have largely done, but ultimately they will change so much as to effectively die out given enough time.

It seems that the end game for any monotheistic religion of conquest (which all Abrahamic religions ultimately are) is to enforce your laws under threat of violence or eventually die out through eventual dilution.

It’s kind of interesting to observe the divergent results of the two paths though. Sure Islam still maintains a stranglehold over the societies it refuses to change for, but it’s also pretty much universally associated with war torn countries saddled by poor scientific and economic progress that reinforce the religion’s power over its believers. Christianity’s acceptance of secular influences has weakened the religion to a shadow of its former self, but you’re hard pressed to point out a prosperous First World nation that wasn’t at least formerly largely Christian.

I would guess the transition from largely religious to largely secular must be handled in a far different way than much of the First World has if you don’t want to see the complete devaluation of a single group in the process. Not that the Muslim world is any more likely to get it right, as they’re incapable of making the transition and reaping the benefits. Even Turkey is now backsliding in to an Islamist government as Erdugon uses the recent “coup attempt” as an excuse to purge several thousand secular opponents from government and reinstate Sharia.

I’m not sure what path a post-religious society should take to avoid the situation we’re in right now. Islam illustrates the pitfalls of clinging too tightly to the past, but Christianity illustrates the pitfalls of a failed transition. Post-religious moral frameworks are something I’ve been pondering for a while, I just don’t quite have all the answers for how to make them work and incentivize individuals to obey them yet.

And once he gets to marriage and his approved expression of his sexuality, the “Christian” man finds that the feminized church, even the male elders, expect endless qualifications to women and his wife’s unceasing appeasement in exchange for that approved sex. It’s a tail-chasing that holds men to the old books social order expectations while absolving women of all accountability and expecting him to also make concessions for a new (feminized) social order that’s ensaturated the church.

Rollo. Every time I try to explain this to church guys I know, it is the end of the conversation for all intents and purposes. It is the toughest nut to crack, in my experience.

@Rollo
“Pope Francis said the Vatican should study the possibility of ordaining women as deacons, answering a call that women, particularly in the United States, have been asking the church to address for decades.”
.
.
.
“To date, Francis has praised the “feminine genius” but has not carried through on vague promises to appoint more women to leadership positions.”

I don’t think he’s infiltrated, but has been given a bad hand to play. How well he’ll play his cards, time will tell. But I see him more like a politician trying to win voters than a traditional Pope. Who he’s going to serve in the end, the Church( MI) or the FI, we’ll have to wait and see.

Look I know I clowned you and now you’re bitter about it, but seriously give up. You just look like a try hard trying to imitate me now. You can’t do it. We already saw your colors. What you’re doing now is just cringe-worthy to watch.

I think you misunderstand how an honest religion works versus how a militant totalitarian ideology in religious disguise works. In the olden days a person could be a garden variety Christian and live in the regular world, or one could go whole hog and join one of the various extremist outfits like a monastery or something. One could adhere to strict rules or one could use a more relaxed approach. In Christianity the particulars were up to the individual conscience and the individual’s sense of his level and intensity and context of commitment. For example, it wasn’t that Christians thought that violent self flagellation was necessary for salvation, it was only supposed that perhaps the activity was a reasonable expression of one’s fanatical devotion and commitment to their religious and spiritual principles. Enforcing the extreme expressions of religious commitment and devotion is all about temporal power and not at all about the Spirit. The Bible says let everyone be persuaded in their own mind. So all I’m saying is that extremist religion can and does function and prosper in a free society, because there are and always will be extremists who like extremism, and they like it extremely. Just don’t let the extremists get the idea that they can force everyone else to be the same, and don’t let megalomaniacs get the idea that they can use the extremism to manipulate politics to get more temporal power for themselves.

There is a historical basis for female deacons, so pope is not wrong about that. There were female deacons in the early church, but for some reason the practice has been abandoned. It is important to understand that a deacon is just a “helper” in the service, someone who helps the priest with the chores. Has no authority, is not allowed to preach without explicit permission, cannot perform any service without the priest etc. So that would be perfectly OK role for a woman. I’ve seen women perform that role in female monasteries (eastern orthodox) for the simple reason there are no other men to help with the service, hand the priest something he needs etc.

I found your article very interesting and for the most part very true. We have been systematically feminized. Personally, I try to avoid anything that would lower my testosterone such as soy or even drinking out of plastic bottles.
I currently lead a college men’s Sunday school class that is specifically for men where I don’t spend my time talking about how bad men are but where we as men need to become men using Jesus as our ultimate model. There are a lot of men here that have shunned the Church and I completely understand but maybe our foundation was built on the wrong ideology. In Christ alone I place my trust. Men will fail (and women!) but His word never fails. I don’t not have a religion. I have a relationship.
There is no conflict with the red pill and Christianity. “you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free”
Even though I enjoyed the article(not a fan of the graphic at the top though) I was disappointed that it was filled with accusations and not specific examples

I would also like to point out to the simple minded post modernists that enforcement of social rules against things like adultery and fornication were NOT NOT NOT!!! seen as primarily religious, but instead were considered important as practical rules for running earthly human societies. And what red pill male in the post modern world is still blind to the chaos and destruction wrought by all the adulteries and fornications committed in Western society these days?